Case/Article Review 7

You have two minutes to read the enclosed article, and you will subsequently be asked a range of questions by the interviewer. You may wish to make notes, however please note you will not be allowed to refer to your notes or the article during the discussion.

‘’A facial surgeon has been struck off the medical register to "protect the public" after harming his patients. Roger Bainton carried out dozens of unnecessary operations and "experimental procedures" while working at Royal Stoke University Hospital from 2005 to 2013.

In the 1990s he was severely reprimanded by the General Medical Council over a death in Scotland.Lawyers are asking why he was ever hired by the Staffordshire hospital.

The surgeon rebuilt the faces of assault or accident victims. A report by the Royal College of Surgeons showed in some cases he used an unproven and experimental bone substitute, called DBX, to treat damaged and fractured eye sockets. He also carried out "unnecessary surgery" on people with jaw injuries, it said.

A Medical Practitoners' Council panel concluded: "Mr Bainton routinely persisted in attempting surgery rather than adopting conservative treatment and repeatedly undertook procedures which were not clinically indicated."

Average Student ResponseThis article discusses issues regarding fitness to practice as well as underlying trust in the medical profession, and how this can be abused by certain individuals. It also discusses the consequences of abusing patient trust in the case of Mr Roger Bainton.

​Excellent Student ResponseThis article raises a number of important issues.

Firstly, there is the question whether doctors who have previously been sacked, reprimanded of proven guilty of misconduct in one hospital should be allowed to work elsewhere within the NHS, as was the case with Mr Bainton. In the event that doctors are not allowed to do so, this may result in a long term NHS doctor supply deficit. Additionally, the widespread negative publicity to the medical profession by such cases, will likely undermine the trust of the public in doctors and may effect treatment compliance amongst other things.

On the other hand, it could be argued that reprimanding doctors for using non-guideline approved techniques and approval may stagnate medical advancements and negatively impact long term health-care provision, with doctors less likely to trial/pioneer novel treatment approaches.Having said this, it is widely agreed that research should be conducted in laboratory and animal settings with proven benefits before being trialled on trusting members of the public, and the article is unclear whether these prior steps had been taken.